Some more thoughts on "Stump the Chump"
As we all know, dubs are not dubs because they necessarily believe what the org says. They are dubs because it fulfills a need they have. Security, order, guilt, whatever.
As we all also know, there is absolutely no point in bringing up criticisms of the org unless the dub in question is actually open to the idea.
Is your wife open to criticisms of the org in a way that could realistically cause her to question her faith in the org?
Do you have a reason to think this? Is it realistic or could you be blinded by hope?
Those are rhetorical questions, but I think you need to ask yourself them.
I think you might have only so many chances at "Stump the Chump". You want to do it at the right time.
If you are sure the time is now, let's think of a list of subjects that you can go through each time. Ask the questions. Give the chump all the time in the world to answer them.
And set him up with your questions.
Example,
Q: "is it true that the jw predicted the end of the world?"
A: "JW never said it would happen for sure, the dates were only put out as a possibility."
Response: "But here in the 1925 Watchtower it says that it is a certainty and chronology is from God not man!"
You get the idea. Game-Set-Match.
This is a cross-examination. You must plan every question, and anticipate every response. And as any lawyer will tell you, you never ask a question that you don't know the answer to.
MJ, I know I already said some of this, it was more for the benefit of the current conversation.